Culture as a construct in BIOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY might appear to be a rather odd notion. Culture in human terms is difficult precisely to define, but is taken to refer to both the tangible achievements of human societies, as well as the values, attitudes and beliefs that inform those societies. In human societies culture is evidenced by such things as architecture, literature, music and the visual arts. The values that inform such activities are drawn principally from theology and philosophy, including such things as political theory, philosophy of science, moral philosophy and the study of aesthetics. Culture is an inclusive term that collects all of these things together. Problems appear when one begins to compare cultures. Is it possible to describe in the same terms, the cultures of, for instance, Europe or China, with the cultures of the indigenous peoples of Amazonia or New Guinea? Then comes the even more difficult question: do animals other than humans posses cultures? Comparisons of human societies, one with another, do make sense. Though often difficult to describe without seeming patronizing, there are common threads in culture which seem to unite all peoples. But is it possible to describe cultures in other animals without either torturing the definition of culture or reducing human culture to a degree that is both simplistic and demeaning?
It is the notion of ‘other animals’ that makes the idea of culture of interest to biologists: humans are animals, and have been subjected to the pressures of NATURAL SELECTION during the course of EVOLUTION as has every other species. Can the origins of human culture be found in other animals, most notably PRIMATES? The answer appears to be yes, but in order to make this claim it is necessary to use a definition of culture that is, at best, minimalist. Culture defined as ‘the non-genetic transmission of habits’ (de Waal, 1999) does exist in chimpanzee societies. Analysis of behaviour patterns in chimpanzee groups at various African sites has revealed quite remarkable variations in behaviours that have been (and, indeed, are being) acquired and transmitted through social groups, establishing patterns of behaviour that are unique to the groups in which they have originated (see Whiten et al., 1999).
Indeed, one might go further and predict that in any species that shows SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR and is capable of OBSERVATION LEARNING and the formation of HABITS, forms of culture might be apparent as patterns of behaviour that are acquired and transmitted across generations.
This use of the term culture in biological psychology will remain contentious. So much depends on the definition of culture that is used, and because, in terms of human societies, culture is so difficult precisely to define, it opens the door to those who wish to propose a lowest-common-denominator definition. The non-genetic transmission of habits might be sufficient when describing chimpanzee behaviour, but is this really a satisfactory definition to use when describing human societies? Such a definition hardly seems able to account for the development of systematic theologies or philosophies, or the development of rarefied theories of aesthetics, and would be a curious way of describing the achievements of, say, Italian Renaissance artists or the builders of the great Egyptian pyramids. Are these all best described as the non-genetic transmission of habits? or should the definition of human culture relate not simply to the development of actions that improve biological success (see FITNESS) but to more abstract conceptions to do with the formulation of values and beliefs? Engaging in such arguments about cultural definitions and differences invariably brings the charge from primatologists that the goal-posts are being moved to prevent primate culture from being recognized for what it is. There is some justification for primatologists taking this line. Clearly, primate societies do have patterns of behaviour that can be described as forming a culture. But even if one accepts the lowest common denominator definition—the non-genetic transmission of habits -as being acceptable in covering culture in all species, there has to be a recognition of the immense gulf between humans and all other animals. To do otherwise is plain silly.
